Introduction
This paper has three sections. Section 1 is a commentary on developing learning and reflective practice. It involves preparing and conducting a structured interview with a classmate to determine his learning style, coupled with suggesting a suitable development tool for him. Section 2 is a report on two companies in Saudi Arabia, SOFCON and SCOMSYS Technology. The reports analyse the companies’ history and structure, among other aspects and it compares them. Section 3 is a presentation on selection and hiring coupled with job analysis and organisational structure in Siemens Saudi Arabia.
Developing learning and reflective practice
Interviewer: Tell me about how the current learning process has affected you.
Interviewee: Initially, my greatest challenge was getting the teacher to realise the learning strategies that made a difference.
Interviewer: What are your views on using guided reading strategies?
Interviewee: I find it difficult to adapt to standardised learning styles. Given an option, I would go for individualised instruction.
Interviewer: Have you had opportunities to realise and build your desired learning styles.
Interviewee: In most cases, yes. We are offered chances to read individually from different topics to create an alternative experience. Questions are presented to make us build reflective skills. We are offered discussion platforms to analyse different topics.
Interviewer: What are the positives that have come from this experience?
Interviewee: I have benefited from collaborating with other students while seeking the teacher’s guidance.
The interview questions were administered through a face-to-face interview to elaborate on questions that seemed unclear to the interviewee. The analysis is based on the Kolb Learning Style Inventory, which suggests that learning is best viewed as a process. According to Pritchard (2005), to promote learning, the principal focus should be on involving students in a process that advances their learning. Essentially, education should be conceived as an ongoing reconstruction of experience (Pritchard 2005). In this case, it is shown that the interviewed student prefers an experimental learning style. In other words, the interviewee is an accommodator because he shows the desire to carry out plans and experiments, and he adjusts to immediate situations. An experimental learning style is essential in making students reflect on themselves as learners. Students are allowed to think of one context where, in their perspective, they learned something by themselves.
Kolb’s approach can be viewed as a presentation of the learning process in general. However, his focus on reflection puts his style in the experience-based category. In his framework, Kolb seeks to demonstrate how experience is translated into concepts through reflection. Kolb argues that such experience is grown through a learning cycle. Finlayson (2016, p. 9) posits that Kolb further shows that students ‘may choose diverse learning styles in different circumstances, but they tend to put more emphasis on certain styles as compared to others’. When left on their own, students tend to adopt the easiest measures for them. Similarly, teachers can be tempted to use teaching techniques based on their personal experiences, which might be different from what is required. Thus, teachers need to exploit various learning styles to ensure the learning needs of diverse learners are met.
Based on Kolb’s learning framework, four learning styles are identified in this section, and they include assimilators, divergers, convergers, and accommodators. According to Finlayson (2016, p. 11), assimilators employ inductive reasoning, and they manifest the potential to build theoretical models’. Divergers perceive circumstances from different dimensions, and they depend on the brainstorming of ideas. Finlayson (2016, p. 11) holds that convergers ‘depend on hypothetical-deductive reasoning’. Accommodators entail the group that carries out experiments and fits to the current situations. Students learn effectively when the topic is given in line with their preferred learning style. The essence is to enable students to self-direct and focus on inclusive development where the person is well endowed with all of the four learning strategies.
The rationale behind Kolb’s framework is that it has many benefits for learners and instructors. The benefits include the view that this framework can be used widely in all areas of the learning discipline. Individuals and teams alike can use this model. Besides, it helps instructors in building a diverse aware learning environment. Kolb helps learners and instructors in realising how to combine different styles towards effective learning.
For instance, using theory to teach about organisational behaviour, in an opening lecture, students should be allowed to read various materials on this topic on their own to gain concrete experience. The instructor should introduce the main questions to trigger reflection on their reading. The lecturer gives the students an opportunity for students to try out theoretical arguments regarding the topic. During the next lesson, the students should present their views. The lecturer should lead a session to expound the theoretical positions as well as what such arguments reveal about the topic. This phase is conceptualisation, after which the course can move to the next topic. During the next topic, Kolb’s theory can be employed again to structure the learning outcome.
Teachers seeking to adopt Kolb’s experimental methods in developing courses do not have to ignore what they are used to do. Kolb’s model can be used alongside other learning styles since it is developed from what is already practised. This model seeks to eliminate the dangers of allowing a specific pattern to dominate and exclude others that could be of great help to learners. Ideally, when presenting the significance of experimental learning theory to students, one should avoid demeaning works of other theorists who strive to explain student learning. However, not one single theory can successfully explain or give a standard learning style. Learners should be exposed to environments that facilitate exploration of a wide scope of learning styles. Therefore, Kolb’s learning style can be used alongside a mix of other learning styles depending on the learner’s needs.
Managing organisational culture
The first organisation is SOFCON, which is a leading firm in full-service engineering and project management solutions. The second organisation is SCOMSYS Technology, which was established in 1995. In the same way, learners develop varying learning and reflective practices, different organisational cultures fit different organisations. A culture’s effectiveness relies on a firm’s business market, approaches and experts.
SOFCON Company
The SOFCON Company has operated in the field of service engineering and project management solutions since 2001. SOFCON was established by a collaboration of three engineers, viz. A. Saihati, O. Othman, and A. Fattani following a merger of their firms. After the merger, SOFCON’s headquarters were located in Al-Khobor. SOFCON has regional offices, thus commanding a strong presence in Saudi Arabia.
The SOFCON Company adopts a formal structure in leadership. The top executives include the chairperson, board of directors, CEO, committees, and statutory auditors. Mid-level personnel includes branch managers, professionals, and supervisors. The support staff members form the lower cadre. The organisational structure is hierarchical since the critical decisions come from the top, and they are implemented at the lower divisions (Schein 2009).
The nature of the business at SOFCON is diverse and industry-focused because its capabilities are organised around various industry groups. These sectors include oil and gas, power, water, petrochemicals, infrastructure, mining and metals, health, and education. Besides, SOFCON serves a corporate social responsibility by supporting charitable organisations in the local communities. Various culture profile features define the SOFCON Company. The company’s employees are adaptive, decisive, competitive, goal-oriented, responsible, result-oriented, tolerant, and they emphasise on quality. SOFCON places a high value on these features since they are essential in dictating if workers are expected to be assertive or easy-going when addressing the companies’ internal and external issues.
SCOMSYS Technology
SCOMSYS was established in 1995, and it continues to offer a wide variety of cross-IT-industry goods, and services to address the majority of IT infrastructure challenges. The SCOMSYS Company adopts a functional structure whereby segmentation in the organisation is done according to the purpose. In this type of structure, there may be a production sector together with the sales and marketing division.
Decision-making is not tied to a top-bottom approach, but it is flexible across departments. However, this formation has a major downside in coordination and communication between departments (Zakrzewska-Bielawska 2016). Due to poor coordination, teamwork is hard to achieve. Working as a team towards a common goal is, in most cases, one of the most rewarding and fascinating elements of work.
The SCOMSYS Company is highly integrated concerning the nature of products and services. This organisation offers network, IT management, security, structured cabling, and platform solutions. The culture profile features embraced by this organisation include teamwork, aggressiveness, and innovativeness, among others.
Comparison of organisational cultures
This section seeks to compare the organisational cultures of SOFCON and SCOMSYS based on the history and structure of the organisations. This comparison utilises Trompenar’s model of organisational culture differences. Koufteros et al. (2014) define organisational culture as a system of common perceptions, values, and beliefs that dictate how people respond in organisations. These common views influence the members of an organisation and govern how they act, relate, dress, and perform their duties. SCOMSYS’s organisational culture is a critical element in the firm’s success. A company’s culture determines its capacity in promoting change, new policies, and plans (Marie Ryan & Derous 2016).
In SCOMSYS’s case, workers are effectively driven and incorporated into an organisational culture that pioneers swift innovation. Based on Trompenar’s assessment, it can be argued that SCOMSYS encourages particularism as opposed to universalism. Particularism is the assertion that situations govern how ideas and practices should be employed (Schein, 2009). Aggressiveness entails being assertive about one’s environment. Based on Trompenar’s findings, SOFCON advances particularism because it focuses on competitors and the overall market situation.
The hierarchical structure at SOFCON discourages consultations and teamwork. This system advocates individual responsibility. This assertion suggests that SOFCON advances individualism as opposed to communitarianism. On the other side, SCOMSYS’s employees regard themselves as part of a group. Therefore, SCOMSYS advocate communitarianism. Based on neutral vs emotional culture, Trompenar suggests that a neutral culture is a condition where emotions are restricted, and an emotional culture entails expressing feelings openly and naturally (Edmonds 2015). Working as a team is highly essential to modern industries. Teamwork promotes flexibility and responsiveness to change.
Achievement vs ascription is the other distinguishing factor addressed in the Trompenar model (Chakravorti 2011). In an achievement culture, employees are recognised based on performance while in the ascription culture, it is based on what a person represents (Brown & Swain 2012). The history of SOFCON suggests that the three founders are the top executives of the company. Thus, the ascription culture dominates this company. The older and most senior members are considered during promotions.
On the other hand, SCOMSYS’s profile shows a mix of young and older people in executive positions. However, modern means of doing business have changed significantly, and firms must adjust to remain relevant and attractive to clients. Currently, the achievement model stands out as the most competitive and progressive. Top professionals are only attracted to organisations where they feel their effort will be recognised and challenged. In this case, SCOMSYS’s stands a good chance to thrive in a perfectly competitive market.
Selection and hiring
Based on this subheading, this section seeks to offer a critical examination of the Siemens Saudi Arabia, where it is officially referred to as Siemens Limited. This company is the main Saudi Arabian branch of the multinational engineering and electronics organisation, Siemens AG. Siemens offers a wide variety of solutions in oil and gas, power generation, information, and communications as well as health care.
However, Siemens’s sustainability and competitiveness are linked to its strict selection and hiring philosophy (Marie Ryan & Derous 2016). Siemens considers various qualities in people as opposed to most organisations. This topic relates to the previous topic about organisational culture in various ways. Many companies practice culture-based recruiting. Selection and hiring are made for the organisation but not just the job. This aspect is important because actively controlling and growing culture via selection can promote employee retention and efficiency. Recruiting for organisational culture attracts candidates who will prosper in the firm.
Following a critical analysis of Siemens’ philosophy of selection and hiring, one identifies that there have been profound and uncompromising attributes required before securing a job at Siemens Limited. The first attribute entails excellent performance. Siemens’ organisational culture embraces a policy of choosing only the top proven performers. Siemens is known to demote or fire employees who fail to meet the company’s expectations.
A quality performance is emphasised as an inevitable success aspect, particularly in design (Marie Ryan & Derous 2016). The second attribute is innovation. Siemens’ culture is extremely innovative. The entire workforce is trained and motivated to innovate at individual levels. The third attribute is passion. Siemens hires people who show the love of its products, the firm, and vision. Job seekers who fail to show a genuine passion and connection to the firm’s agenda and philosophy are not allowed to join the workforce (Park, Choi, & Lee 2015).
The combination of excellence, passion, and innovativeness in Siemens’ organisational culture promotes the company’s leadership. These attributes of human resources give Siemens a competitive edge. Innovation and excellence are critical factors in Siemens’ swift growth. However, this organisational culture is linked to various drawbacks. The high degree of combativeness and employer expectations limits flexibility and the employees’ morale. A little time to create rapport and adjust in a new working environment is necessary to ensure that workers feel motivated (Colquitt, LePine, & Wesson 2015). These weaknesses suggest that Siemens’ selection and hiring process has room for significant adjustments to build the company’s human resource capabilities.
Job Analysis and Organisation Structure
Job analysis at Siemens is documented through a job analysis questionnaire. This document creates a job description consisting of roles and responsibilities of various positions (Zakrzewska-Bielawska 2016). Some of the information considered by Siemens’ job analysis approach includes work activities, human characteristics, tools, equipment and machines, job context, and performance requirements.
On the other hand, the organisational structure at Siemens is predominantly a traditional hierarchy, but with few features from divisional and functional organisational structures. The organisational structure is responsible for the firm to keep on growing rapidly (Koufteros et al. 2014). Top executives at Siemens make the most critical decisions. However, there is little flexibility and increased cooperation among different departments in the firm. Hierarchy empowers top executives to oversee all business that defines an organisation (Lee, Kozlenkova, & Palmatier 2014). The main advantage of this structure is a centralised decision-making platform. However, hierarchy impedes lower divisions of the firm from reacting to the flexibility of industry needs and market changes. Changes in the structure should entail the incorporation of the functional and divisional model of organisational structure (Koufteros et al. 2014).
Consequences
When Siemens adopts a less combative criterion such as selecting and training applicants based on technical skills rather than innovativeness alone, more applicants will have an opportunity to develop their careers. Besides, when a firm becomes flexible, workers are motivated to produce optimally and effectively (Connors & Smith 2009). Since different people have varied abilities, the Siemens’ human resource department must develop a job analysis model that looks at other diverse factors rather than the combination of passion, innovativeness, and excellence.
Introducing a matrix or a combination of functional and divisional organisational structure improves independence (Ryan & Derous 2016). When workers have the independence to act, they tend to be highly innovative, thus increasing the level and quality of production (Iljins, Skvarciany, & Gaile-Sarkane 2015). The current state of Siemens’ organisational structure supports business growth at desirable levels. Still, following the high rate of competition experienced in the world market, an absolute hierarchical structure might become obsolete in the short term. However, it is necessary to retain a central reporting point where visions and objectives are created and shared with the entire group (Edmonds 2015).
Measures
Various structural, selecting, and hiring measures should be maintained in any organisation. Measures to maintain include innovativeness, excellence, and passion. These attributes are necessary for an organisation seeking to produce and compete at global levels. However, stringent specifications on these attributes might not be necessary because they can scare potential applicants. Regarding the structure, Siemens should abandon its strict hierarchical system and adopt a blend of functional and divisional organisational structures. Unlike the hierarchical structure, the functional and divisional structures are highly flexible because the lower tiers have a product and function-based groupings (Connors & Smith 2012).
Conclusion
From the interview in section 1, it emerged that the interviewee was an accommodator because he is willing to adapt to any environment together with the readiness to execute plans and experiments. In section 2, SCOMSYS uses a bottom-up management structure where employees are involved in decision-making, and this aspect has contributed to the success of the company. On the other side, SOFCON uses a hierarchical whereby employees have to follow set rules and procedures from the management. This structure discourages teamwork. In section 3, Siemens Saudi Arabia uses a rigorous selection and hiring process to have the best workforce. The company uses structured questionnaires for job analysis while the organisational structure is hierarchical, where the top management is allowed to make the crucial decisions.
Reference List
Brown, J & Swain, A 2012, The professional recruiter’s handbook, Kogan, London. Web.
Chakravorti, S 2011, ‘Managing organisational culture change and knowledge to enhance customer experiences: analysis and framework’, Journal of Strategic Marketing, vol. 19, no. 2, pp.123-151. Web.
Colquitt, J, LePine, J & Wesson, M 2015, Organisational behaviour, McGraw-Hill, New York. Web.
Connors, R & Smith, T, 2009, How did that happen, Penguin, New York. Web.
Connors, R & Smith, T 2012, Change the culture; change the game, Penguin, New York. Web.
Edmonds, S 2015, The culture engine: a framework for driving results, inspiring your employees, and transforming your workplace, Wiley, New York. Web.
Finlayson, A 2016, ‘Developing a reflective practice model for engineering leadership’, Reflective Practice, vol. 12, no.6, pp.1-13. Web.
Iljins, J, Skvarciany, V & Gaile-Sarkane, E 2015, ‘Impact of organisational culture on organisational climate during the process of change’, Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, vol. 213, no. 2, pp.944-950. Web.
Koufteros, X, Peng, X, Lu, G & Peters, R 2014, ‘The impact of organisational structure on internal and external integration: an empirical, cross-regional assessment’, Journal of Organisation Design, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 5-9. Web.
Lee, J, Kozlenkova, I & Palmatier, R 2014, ‘Structural marketing: using organisational structure to achieve marketing objectives’, Journal of the Academic Marketing Science, vol. 43, no. 1, pp.73-99. Web.
Marie Ryan, A, & Derous, E 2016, ‘highlighting tensions in recruitment and selection research and practice’, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, vol. 24, no. 1, pp.54-62. Web.
Park, N, Choi, K & Lee, J 2015, ‘The hierarchy myopia of organisational learning’, Seol Journal of Business, vol. 21, no. 2, pp.71-104. Web.
Pritchard, A, 2005, Ways of learning, David Fulton, London. Web.
Schein, E 2009, The corporate culture survival guide, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Web.
Zakrzewska-Bielawska, A 2016, ‘Perceived mutual impact of strategy and organisational structure: Findings from the high-technology enterprises’, Journal of Management & Organisation, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1-24. Web.